NSA's Former General Council Talks Privacy, Security, and Snowden's 'Betrayal'

blottsie writes: In his first interview since retiring as general council to the NSA, Rajesh De offers detailed insights into the spy agency's efforts to find balance between security and privacy, why the NSA often has trouble defending itself in public, the culture of "No Such Agency," and what it was like on the inside when the Snowden bombshell went off. He describes the mood after the leaks: "My sense of it was that there were two overriding emotions among the workforce. The first was a deep, deep [feeling] of betrayal. Someone who was sitting next to them—being part of the team helping keep people safe, which is really what people at the agency think they are doing—could turn around and do something so self-aggrandizing and reckless. There was also a deep sense of hurt that a lot of what was in the media was not entirely accurate. Questioning the motives and legality of what NSA employees were being asked to do to keep Americans safe—all within the legal policy construct that we've been given—that was difficult for the NSA workforce."

Comments

"Policy construct we've been given"

[DoofusOfDeath]

So as long as my boss tells me it's okay to torture people and routinely violate the Consittution, it's okay?

Fuck you, cowardly anti-democratic traitor.

Re:"Policy construct we've been given"

[Anonymous Coward]

The article seems like a lot of spin.

Doesn't give any details, basically citing that he isn't allowed to divulge details, about how and why people are protected by mechanisms like FISA, yet we've already been shown how much of a rubber stamp the FISA courts are, and still the NSA games the system to stymie what little oversight they have.

All of those bums should be prosecuted for breaking the law, but since the powerful protect the powerful, and power corrupts them, no one will ever laying charges against all the law breakers in the oval office and three letter government groups.

Just remember they hoover up as much as they can to retain it for 15 years. So it is disingenuous for these guys to yap about not using broad net. The moment you step out of line they will use all the power they have to crush you, and go back up to 15 years to do so.

Re:"Policy construct we've been given"

[boristdog]

I think a key phrase is "being part of the team helping keep people safe, which is really what people at the agency think they are doing"

So he admits they just think that they are helping keep people safe. Or that they have convinced the lower echelons that public safety is their goal, when higher-ups like him know better.

Re:"Policy construct we've been given"

[gweihir]

My grandparents on my mother's side where both part of some 3rd Reich organizations. They believed back then they were doing good and in hindsight never were sure they could have seen what they were really doing and supporting at the time they did it. Gave them a life-long extreme distaste for politics, because they realized it is easy to trick people into doing utter evil while they think that do good. The NSA workers that felt betrayed are lacking that insight, and they do so in a situation where finding out what it actually going on is much easier.

Re:"Policy construct we've been given"

[Tokolosh]

"Ve vere yust followink orders!"

Time to watch Dr. Strangelove again, which perfectly captures the atmosphere inside this little man's bubble.

Re:"Policy construct we've been given"

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you need to know about authority and your fellow man(including myself):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_courage

My first contribution is that "doing the right thing" is usually ambiguous and that inaction is almost always a safer behavior than risking taking action only to later discover you were misguided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

My second contribution is that society presents "moral courage" as a virtue precisely because it is so rare and irrational and is therefore a last line of defense for herd protection against predators(and insider threats) that depend on predictable(Read: rational & self-interested) behavior to extract unearned rent from the flock. This glorification is a self-centered form of "you go first buddy" with much less sarcasm and much more cowardice.

Wolves resenting sheep-dogs shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Knowing the difference is the hard part since they look very similar to each other & both probably believe that they are acting in the best interest of the sheep(but not necessarily the farmer...). My hypothesis is there is no better heuristic for receiving good compensation than positioning yourself such that you find yourself battling with such ethical quandaries. The pay is normally increased until people stop resigning in disgust. Under those circumstances I normally try to determine how seriously the authority figures took a work of satire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

My third contribution is that it remains to be seen if Snowden "did the right thing" and in the absence of complete information we are left to wonder if he was a wolf or a sheep-dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

When your neighbors conceal themselves in a defensive fog it's a prudent question to ask if you're living next to Burt Gummer or something more sinister. Under those circumstances it becomes a matter of faith on whose interests are being protected beneath the cover of concealment, but you have the benefit of a historic track record to form an opinion.

My fourth contribution is that if Snowden expected a hero's welcome he learned a valuable lesson about moral courage and the pursuit of glory.

My fifth contribution is that the people who have the ability to change the status quo are assuredly removed from poverty to distance their sentimental bonding from the people who are not benefiting from the world as it is.
http://historum.com/european-history/20506-louis-xiv-s-reasons-palace-versailles.html

My sixth contribution is that people who play mercenary to tyrants should learn to differentiate between history lesson and morality tale(another form of bleating from the sheep):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull

If just-deserts were the usual outcome they wouldn't be so important to tell children about... The reduced capacity of Hollywood to quench the blood-lust has lead to some really classic lynch mobs forming on twitter. Nothing pleases a crowd like a good gallows construction or lion feeding.

Statesmanship really isn't so hard to figure out. Writers go to great lengths to communicate the rules of the game. Its sort of entertaining to watch but once it got boring I decided to watch Slashdot and YouTube comment threads for the lulz. So much crab mentality. Very delicious.

Re:"Policy construct we've been given"

[painandgreed]

My grandparents on my mother's side where both part of some 3rd Reich organizations. They believed back then they were doing good and in hindsight never were sure they could have seen what they were really doing and supporting at the time they did it. Gave them a life-long extreme distaste for politics, because they realized it is easy to trick people into doing utter evil while they think that do good. The NSA workers that felt betrayed are lacking that insight, and they do so in a situation where finding out what it actually going on is much easier.

Remember, Goebbel's propaganda wasn't primarily used to fool other nations, but to fool the Germans themselves.

Re:"Policy construct we've been given"

[AmiMoJo]

Even if they do believe that they are doing some good, that doesn't excuse the constitutional violations.

My first interview question

[NotDrWho]

What aren't you in prison, rotting right next to all the other NSA leaders who betrayed their country and its Constitution?

Straw Man Detected... Legal !== Moral

[tomxor]

There was also a deep sense of hurt that a lot of what was in the media was not entirely accurate. Questioning the motives and legality of what NSA employees were being asked to do to keep Americans safe.

People who confuse or purposely use law as a synonym for morality are not to be trusted... The focus could not be more clearly on morality in this case.

Policies are not safeguards

[Kohath]

If you read the article, he talks about how they have "policies" against indiscriminate snooping. But it's all a lot of talk. For example, he says the FISA court "can be quite harsh" in their written opinions -- as if this were a real consequence. Maybe it's a big deal for a lawyer, but there's an extremely large cultural divide between lawyers and non-lawyers.

No one will be reassured by any of these statements. Nor should they be, if this is the best story the NSA can tell.

Re:Policies are not safeguards

[ColdWetDog]

If you persist in this behavior we shall write you another stern letter.

Scary.

Re:Policies are not safeguards

[gweihir]

It is just like all people that have been part of a truly large evil: Denial, misdirection, lies. They never want to acknowledge they did wrong.

Re:How 'bout..

[tnk1]

As explained in the article, the staff of the NSA does not have carte blanche to just spy on people. They operate based on requirements. Now, those requirements might cause information to be collected in a way that is unconstitutional, let's face it, they're doing a job. The feeling that they are doing something earth shatteringly wrong is not one that you get in a bureaucracy like the NSA because they're generally only privy to a compartmentalized section of it. Similar sorts of things happen all the time with regimes where large bureaucracies support activities such as intelligence gathering, or "special activities".

That means that any particular person working there believes that their little bit of the work is helping their country. Without a full insight into the project, they will not feel that the criticisms leveled at the Agency are leveled at them personally. Instead, they believe that Snowden is making their job more difficult, which honestly, he is. It's a matter of perspective. Easy for those of us with no involvement or investment in the NSA to take a strong view against their employer, but for those who earnestly work to do their job there to aid their country, they're going to feel like they're being betrayed. Some of them might, like Snowden, have a larger view and rebel against it, but do would not have his access.

Rajesh De

[stox]

Your first and absolute responsibility is to the Constitution.

The NSA has failed miserably in that role.

Difficult for them?

[kuzb]

No, fuck all that crying. It SHOULD be difficult for them. Anyone with as much power as the NSA should have to account for every damn thing they do on domestic and friendly soil. Fuck the delusional workers who think they're doing the public a great service. It's time for them to wake up and understand that they're goddamn pawns in the game of circumventing democracy so the rich and powerful can stay rich and powerful.

The NSA broke the public trust in a major way, and they deserve all the criticism and skepticism they get.